Rational and Irrational Numbers
Warm-up
Draw a unit square and its diagonal: "The sides are 1. How long is the diagonal — exactly?" Pythagoras gives . Now the provocation: "Fine — write as a fraction." Let them try 1.4 (: squares to 1.96), 1.41, (squares to 2.0002…) — every candidate misses.
The reveal: no fraction EVER hits it. Numbers exist that are not ratios of integers — irrationals — and one is hiding in every square's diagonal.
Explore
Number-system census: sort a zoo of numbers (, , , , , , ) into rational vs irrational, with the operational test: rational = expressible as = decimal that terminates OR repeats. The engineered decimal (pattern grows, never repeats) earns its irrational badge by structure.
Then locate irrationals physically: construct on a number line with compass-and-diagonal (swing the unit square's diagonal down to the axis) — an irrational number with an exact ADDRESS, pinned by geometry that decimals can only approximate.
Formalize
Formalize the hierarchy — naturals inside integers inside rationals, with irrationals as the rest of the real line:
The decimal trichotomy that decides membership: terminating (rational), repeating (rational), neither (irrational). Roots sort quickly: is rational exactly when is a perfect square — everything between squares is irrational, so irrationals are EVERYWHERE (between any two squares, infinitely many).
Practice
Practice: classify twelve numbers with reasons; convert to a fraction (the ×100-and-subtract trick: , , , ); order a mixed rational/irrational set using root-trapping; one construction of on the line (legs 1 and 2).
Exit ticket: is rational or irrational? (Simplify first: — rational! Irrational ingredients can cook rational meals.)
Exit ticket
Practice: classify twelve numbers with reasons; convert to a fraction (the ×100-and-subtract trick: , , , ); order a mixed rational/irrational set using root-trapping; one construction of on the line (legs 1 and 2).
Exit ticket: is rational or irrational? (Simplify first: — rational! Irrational ingredients can cook rational meals.)
The suspects: , , , .
Step 1: — perfect square, rational (integer, even).
Step 2: : 48 is not a perfect square () — irrational. (Simplifying shows the irrational core explicitly.)
Step 3: : a ratio of integers — rational BY DEFINITION, famous only for impersonating .
Step 4: : repeating — rational; convert to prove: , , , .
Step 5: The takeaway: each verdict cited a TEST (perfect square? ratio? repeats?), not an impression. Classification is a courtroom, and tests are the admissible evidence.
Step 1: Integer bracket: , nearer 3.
Step 2: First squeeze: (low), (high) → .
Step 3: Second squeeze: (low), (high) → (two decimals: 2.64…6, closer scrutiny: — so 2.65 to two decimals).
Step 4: The philosophical point riding the arithmetic: the squeeze never ENDS — no decimal, however long, equals ; the brackets just shrink forever around a point the fractions can't name. "Irrational" is not "unknown" — the number is exactly pinned (the side of a 7-area square); only its decimal outfit is endless.
The lab question: which operations can LAUNDER irrationality away?
Step 1: — rational. Multiplication of an irrational by itself can rationalize.
Step 2: — rational. Additive opposites cancel the irrational parts.
Step 3: — still irrational (a nonzero rational multiple of an irrational stays irrational). And : irrational (if it were rational, subtracting 1 would make rational — contradiction, and the class just did a proof by contradiction without flinching).
Step 4: The summary table students build: irrational ± rational → irrational; irrational × nonzero rational → irrational; irrational ∘ irrational → EITHER (depends on the pair).
Step 5: Why it matters ahead: simplifying radicals, rationalizing denominators, and solving quadratics all lean on knowing which operations preserve what. Today's lab is tomorrow's algebra insurance.